The OFFICIAL Plustek 120 post your scans

Image from the testfilm, Fuji Reala 100, of my Voigtländer Perkeo II MF 6x6 folder after a shutter/lens clean. No Sharpening, No IR-Dustreduction.

Different sizes can be seen here :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29504544@N08/8668031780/sizes/l/in/photostream/

8668031780_0b92107f7d_c.jpg
 
Nice grain, isn't ? Almost looks like a painting 🙂
btw Made a mistake in my description. It is not Velvia but Reala, just corrected that.

Well, Reala 100 has very fine grain so the explanation has to be sought elsewhere.
IMO this effect is caused by the very harsh LED-lighting and the very fine resolution (both digital as well as optical) of the scanner.
Maybe somebody on this forum can explain more about that but it looks like some
kind of interference.

Sometimes i had exactly the same phenomen with my Nikon Coolscan IV ED scanner.
See here : http://www.flickr.com/photos/29504544@N08/3689267963/

This effect usually disappears when IR-Dustreduction is turned on and details get very slightly blurred.
Still have to do a conclusive test regarding this with the Opticfilm 120.

However, in some images, like the one above i really like that effect 🙂

visualbassist said:
how did you manage to have so much grain on velvia...?
Click to expand...
 
Something is very wrong with your scan settings.
you grain looks extremely oversharpend.
maybe you have some kind of sharpening switched on in the scanning process?
 
No Johnny, only very light sharpening in PSE.

The effect you see is caused by optic alliasing. Not uncommon with scanners having a high optical resolution. Easily resolved by de-focusing the optics (which i of course don't want to do 😀).

Many people seem to like it as this image was in Flickr Explorer yesterday 🙂



johnny.moped said:
Something is very wrong with your scan settings.
you grain looks extremely oversharpend.
maybe you have some kind of sharpening switched on in the scanning process?
Click to expand...
 
I use a Flextight X1 scanner so I know pretty well about scans with high optical resolution. An I also have scanned lots of Reala negatives and never seen this kind of grain. To be honest, you shouldn't see any grain at all at this image size with this film.
None of the other example scans in this thread shows this effect (except yours).
And yes, the image is still to like.
Don't want to bother you but for me this looks exactly like oversharpend grain.
 
Just had a look at the originals on your flickr stream. they look ok to me. so it must be the flickr downsampling algorithm that is oversharpning a bit.
But what I do see is the famous salt&pepper grain that Reala is famous for.
Did you use ICE while scanning?
 
Johny, no, i didn't use IR-Dustreduction but i know that when i turn that On much of this effect disappears. I have similar experiences with my Nikon Coolscan IV ED.

What kind of light does your scanner use ?



johnny.moped said:
Just had a look at the originals on your flickr stream. they look ok to me. so it must be the flickr downsampling algorithm that is oversharpning a bit.
But what I do see is the famous salt&pepper grain that Reala is famous for.
Did you use ICE while scanning?
Click to expand...
 
hello, after a long waiting, here is a new test of the opticfilm 120 at filmscanner.info:
http://www.filmscanner.info/PlustekOpticFilm120.html

it seems not to be a "nikon-killer".
resolution is between the reflecta mf 500 an the nikon 9000, scanning times are extremly long.

probably nikon had engineers with supernatural skills 10 years ago?
10 years are a very long time in electronic development, digital cameras had about 6 MP or the like...
i know the automotive industry, there it is usual, that competitors disassemble cars of other manufacturers, just to make their own product better... good for consumers.
when one plans to develop a same or higher quality scanner than the nikon is, i`d be highly interested what the major problems are. if it has to be cheap, ok this is one thing. but the opticfilm is not cheap. maybe there are troubles with patents...
just consider what high price you would have to pay 10 years ago for a computer or a tv with the standards of nowdays? not affordable, for me at least.
these days many film users would be willing to pay much money for a scanner which delivers adequate quality. (nikon price range - not hasselblad price range).
it is sad to have few alternatives.
after all at least it`s good to see that new good film scanners are beeing produced. thank you plustek! maybe we would have liked minimal higher quality for the price of 2000 euros and the long wait.

just in case that filmscanner.info had one of these inaccurate opticfilm 120 for their test, mark druziak should clarify it with the guys and let the rf-community know that. many potential buyers could cancel in the moment.
and next, at what serial number of the opticfilm are mistakes eleminated??

no statements from mark for a long time here..

best regards
 
I hesitate to make the scanner responsible for the long scan times that filmscanner.info found. The scan times I see are in the same ballpark but I have a decidedly sub-standard PC - and there are people who say that their scan times are only a fraction of this.

Since the actual scan time is really short and most of the time is then taken up for "processing", I rather see this as a Silverfast problem - and Silverfast is a problem anyway, in my opinion. I have never (with the exception of some SAP modules) used something so buggy as this.

The fact that filmscanner.info says no word of criticism about the quality of this silverfast version, together with the constant praise in all their other tests - and that they also sell Silverfast makes me wonder about the standard of their other findings...

Regards,

Sven
 
I agree Sven,

I have now made several hundred scans with my Opticfilm 120 and can conclude no other then that the Silverfast SW must have a giant bug inside which sometimes causes extreme long processing times without any appearent reason.
The guys at Silverfast should do some indepth research on that and give us an update ASAP.

The scanrun doesn't take that long, it's just the c""""d software.

I tried the Opticfilm 120 with Vuescan but that software sees it as a kind of reflective flatbedscanner. Amazingly enough a preview of part of the holder is possible (so there is communication) but not a real scan.



stormy_weather said:
I hesitate to make the scanner responsible for the long scan times that filmscanner.info found. The scan times I see are in the same ballpark but I have a decidedly sub-standard PC - and there are people who say that their scan times are only a fraction of this.

Since the actual scan time is really short and most of the time is then taken up for "processing", I rather see this as a Silverfast problem - and Silverfast is a problem anyway, in my opinion. I have never (with the exception of some SAP modules) used something so buggy as this.

The fact that filmscanner.info says no word of criticism about the quality of this silverfast version, together with the constant praise in all their other tests - and that they also sell Silverfast makes me wonder about the standard of their other findings...

Regards,

Sven
Click to expand...
 
bambule said:
resolution is between the reflecta mf 500 an the nikon 9000, scanning times are extremly long.

probably nikon had engineers with supernatural skills 10 years ago?
Click to expand...

No, it's just that Nikon had it right from the beginning: some kind of focus adjustment is just MANDATORY in a high resolution MF scanner, there's no way around this!

Along with first rumors of this Plustek 120, I and other users with vast experiences in actual scanning pledged, almost prayed Plustek to include some sort of focus adjustment, even a very simple holder height adjustment would have sufficed.

But no, their answer was "our very nice lens and holder will take care of everything, no need to adjust focus".

That's the result.
3650 ppi measured by Filmscanner Info because of factory-misplaced focus plane (you can see this is the reason, because the USAF chart shows the taletelling longitudinal chromatic aberration).

Fernando
 
Ok, this is a triple test, Opticfilm120, first roll with Mamiya7II and 65mm and first 120 roll developed in stand 1:100 with Rodinal.
Biggers pictures here http://www.flickr.com/photos/thepictureswelove/8719753955/sizes/l/in/photostream/

8719753955_11491ee57f_b.jpg


I used for a long time the Epson v750 with fluid mount, well..Optic film120 is faster, better in dynamic range and also 135mm scan is pretty good and usable (it wasn't with the v750).
I'm pretty happy after the resolution of focus issue. By the way i still prefer to wet scan with one of the holder hacked 😉
Colors tests will come.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jaredangle
OOF scans on Epson V550?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Freakscene
Freakscene
Z
Issues with scanning and plustek 120
Replies
11
Views
3K
Zhares
Z
raid
Post your images here
18 19 20
Replies
382
Views
25K
Erik van Straten
Erik van Straten
farlymac
Leica IIIf Post DAG Overhaul Test
Replies
18
Views
2K
Godfrey
Godfrey
Chriscrawfordphoto
Why I'm Shooting Film Again
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
11K
wlewisiii
W
Back
Top Bottom